The search for subsurface hydrocarbon deposits typically involves a sequence of data acquisition, analysis, and interpretation procedures. The data acquisition phase involves use of an energy source to generate signals that propagate into the earth and reflect from various subsurface geologic structures. The reflected signals are recorded by a multitude of receivers on or near the surface of the earth, or in an overlying body of water. The received signals, which are often referred to as seismic traces, consist of amplitudes of acoustic energy which vary as a function of time. receiver position, and source position and, most importantly, vary as a function of the physical properties of the structures from which the signals reflect. The data analyst uses these traces along with a geophysical model to develop an image of the subsurface geologic structures.
The analysis phase involves procedures that vary depending on the nature of the geological structure being investigated, and on the characteristics of the dataset itself. In general, however, the purpose of a typical seismic data processing effort is to produce an image of the geologic structure from the recorded data. That image is developed using theoretical and empirical models of the manner in which the signals are transmitted into the earth, attenuated by the subsurface strata, and reflected from the geologic structures. The quality of the final product of the data processing sequence is heavily dependent on the accuracy of these analysis procedures.
The final phase is the interpretation of the analyzed results. Specifically, the interpreter's task is to assess the extent to which subsurface hydrocarbon deposits are present, thereby aiding such decisions as whether additional exploratory drilling is warranted or what an optimum hydrocarbon recovery scenario may be. In that assessment, the interpretation of the image involves a variety of different efforts. For example, the interpreter often studies the imaged results to obtain an understanding of the regional subsurface geology. This may involve marking main structural features, such as faults, synclines and anticlines. Thereafter, a preliminary contouring of horizons may be performed. A subsequent step of continuously tracking horizons across the various vertical sections, with correlations of the interpreted faults, may also occur. As is clearly understood in the art, the quality and accuracy of the results of the data analysis step of the seismic sequence have a significant impact on the accuracy and usefulness of the results of this interpretation phase.
In principle, the seismic image can be developed using a three-dimensional geophysical model of seismic wave propagation, thereby facilitating accurate depth and azimuthal scaling of all reflections in the data. Accurately specified reflections greatly simplify data interpretation, since the interpretational focus can be on the nature of the geologic structure involved and not on the accuracy of the image. Unfortunately, three dimensional geophysical models frequently require intolerably long computation times, and seismic analysts are forced to simplify the data processing effort as much as possible to reduce the burdens of both analysis time and cost.
In addition to the 3-D computation challenge, the analyst faces a processing volume challenge. For example, a typical data acquisition exercise may involve hundreds to hundreds of thousands of source locations, with each source location having hundreds of receiver locations. Because each source-receiver pair may make a valuable contribution to the desired output image, the data handling load (i.e., the input/output data transfer demand) can be a burden in itself, independent of the computation burden.
FIG. 1 depicts a perspective view of a region 20 of the earth for which a geophysical image is desired. On the surface 18 of the earth are shown a number of shot lines 2 along which the seismic data are acquired. As shown in FIG. 1A, shot lines 2 consist of a sequence of positions at which a seismic source 3 is placed and from which seismic signals with ray paths 5 are transmitted into the earth. Receivers 4 placed along each line receive the signals from each source position after reflection from various subsurface reflectors 6.
A first method of managing the seismic data burdens discussed above involves careful definition of the region over which the data are acquired. Specifically, use of any available preliminary geologic and geophysical information may facilitate the minimization of the surface area over which seismic data may need to be acquired. Such a minimization will directly reduce the amount of data that is ultimately acquired. Furthermore, similarly careful planning of the spacing between shot lines will optimize the analysis effort by reducing data volume. And finally, optimization of the number of sources and receivers that are used, and of the spacing between adjacent source and receiver positions, will also benefit the data analyst.
None of these efforts can be accomplished without a penalty. For example, relatively wide spacing between shot lines, or between sources and receivers, reduce the resolution of the computed seismic image, thus making interpretation more difficult. In addition, complex geologic features may not be resolvable without relatively close spacing. And finally, certain data acquisition exercises, such as in relatively unexplored areas, do not allow optimization of the surface area over which data is to be acquired. As a result, the data handling burden cannot be entirely eliminated through data acquisition planning.
The recent availability of massively parallel processors offers a significant opportunity to seismic data analysts. Massively parallel processors (MPPs) have multiple central processing units (CPUs) which can perform simultaneous computations. By efficient use of these CPUs, the weeks or months previously required for complex analyses can be reduced to a few days, or perhaps a few hours. However, this significant advantage can only be realized if efficient computational algorithms are encoded in the MPP software. Thus, the opportunity MPPs offer seismic data analysts also creates a challenge for the development of suitable computational algorithms that take advantage of the multiple CPUs.
This challenge can be easily discussed by considering the manner in which computational algorithms have most commonly been written for existing seismic analysis routines. Until recently, computers relied on a mode of operation referred to as sequential computing. Sequential computing involves use of analytic routines that perform only a single procedure, or perhaps focus on a single subset of the data or image, at any given time. This is a direct result of a computer having only one CPU. For that reason, the only optimization procedures that can be employed on single CPU computers are those which increase the efficiency of the processing as to the procedure or subset. Because all calculations must ultimately be performed by that single CPU, however, the options for obtaining high performance are innately limited.
On the other hand, the multiple CPU capability of MPPs offers an obvious simultaneous computation advantage. This advantage is that the total time required to solve a computational problem can be reduced by subdividing the work to be done among the various CPUs, provided that the subdivision allows each CPU to perform useful work while the other CPUs are also performing work. Unfortunately, the disadvantage of multiple CPU hardware is that the sequential processing methods that have long been used in software development must be replaced by more appropriate parallelized computing methods. Simply stated, MPPs require that processing methods be developed which make efficient use of the multiple CPU hardware. Ideally, these methods should organize the distribution of work relatively evenly among the processors, and ensure that all processors are performing necessary computations all of the time, rather than awaiting intermediate results from other processors.
The challenge of defining parallelized processing methods, and of optimizing those parallelized methods once defined, is particularly acute in the seismic data processing arena. Seismic data consists generally of a large number of individual traces, each recorded somewhat independently of the other traces. Logically enough, sequential computing methods that require the analytic focus to be placed on a single calculation at a time adapt well to analysis of these independent traces. This is true even though computational bottlenecks may exist. For example, portions of the analytic sequence may require relatively more computation time than other portions, must be completed before other calculations may proceed, or may rely on similar input data as other traces, for example traveltimes. Since no simultaneous computations occur in sequential processing, none of these bottlenecks lead to a reduction in computational efficiency with a single CPU, except as to the total processing time that is required. Except as to that total time requirement, the existence of such computational bottlenecks does not otherwise pose problems for the analyst. To take full advantage of MPP computing capabilities, however, where the goal is to perform simultaneous processing in all CPUs, methods for optimizing the seismic analysis phase by eliminating such bottlenecks must be developed.
This advantage of an MPP becomes clear by considering the limitation which calculation time places on image region size in single CPU computers. Increasing the size of the image, e.g., by expanding the size of cube 20 in FIG. 1, or increasing the amount of data to be processed, e.g., by adding additional sources 3 and receivers 4 to shotlines 2, increase the total computation. That direct impact on calculation time places a heavy burden on seismic analysts to optimize image size, especially since even small image regions may require weeks of computation time on even the highest speed sequential processing computers. In contrast, efficient processing on MPPs, which may have as many as or more than 256 individual CPUs, should only involve minimally lengthened computation times, since each CPU would assume just a fraction, for example 1/256, of the additional work required by the larger region. This potential for scalability of the image region and the work load required in image generation is a principal benefit of MPPs, a benefit that can only be realized if parallelized seismic processing methods allowing such workload scalability are developed.
Basic considerations for determining efficient parallelized seismic processing methods become evident by reconsidering the above review of the seismic analysis process. As noted, the purpose of seismic analysis is to analyze measured seismic data using geophysical models to develop images of the subsurface. Therefore, each of three principal processing components--data, model, and image--may be considered to be a candidate for distributing computational work among the various processors in an MPP. One option for distributing work among the processors would be to assign different groups of the input seismic trace data to different processors. For example, traces may be grouped by source locations, with different processors being assigned different groups. Similarly, the output image could be subdivided and assigned to different processors. Finally, it may also be possible to subdivide the geophysical model used to generate the output image into groupings that can be assigned to the various processors. (That model is generally considered to be embodied in the arithmetic operations required by the mathematical model that is the subject of the processing effort. For example, in seismic analysis the mathematical model is often based on the wave equation). For example, the data may be transformed into the frequency domain, with individual frequencies assigned to individual processors. It may also be possible to develop combinations of these approaches. For example, groups of processors may be assigned collective responsibility for specific frequencies in the model and all depths in the image, while having individual responsibility for specific horizontal locations in the image. The challenge to the seismic data analyst is to determine methods of subdividing the seismic data, model, and image into components that can be assigned to individual processors in the MPP, thus allowing calculations to be performed in each processor independently of other processors. This subdivision of seismic data analysis into individual components is commonly referred to as seismic decomposition.
One type of MPP has from thousands to tens of thousands of relatively unsophisticated processing elements. In this kind of machine, the processing elements typically perform the same operation on multiple data streams, a Single Instruction, Multiple Data stream (SIMD) machine. An example is the CM2, a product of the Thinking Machines Corporation. These kinds of machines typically lack shared memory, i.e., each processor has its own separate memory unit and the information in the memory cannot be directly accessed by other processors. The individual processors typically have limited computing capability and memory. Because of the large number of processing elements and a lack of shared memory, data transfer between the processing elements is a major bottleneck in efficient utilization of the capability of the machines. Even with sophisticated interconnection techniques, such as in a hypercube arrangement, transfer of data between processors is a major factor in the running time of programs.
Other computers have much more powerful elements in arrays of tens or hundreds. The T3D, a product of Cray Research Corporation, is an example of this kind of machine. Besides having individual processing elements that are much more powerful than those in the CM2, the T3D has fewer of the elements and a physically distributed, logically shared memory. This Multiple Instruction Multiple Data stream (MIMD) machine has different elements performing different operations on different parts of the data at the same time. The reduced number of processing elements means that data does not have to be transferred to as many elements as in a SIMD machine. Because of the increased sophistication and cost of the individual elements and because of their fewer numbers, efficient utilization requires that the load on the processing elements be balanced. An additional factor is that each processing element must accommodate a larger subset of the overall data volume; computations that involve sorting of the data could become more complicated.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,504,678, issued to Jusczak, Willen and Rendleman, and copending application Ser. No. 08/439834 of Jusczak and Willen disclose an MPP method of prestack depth migration. One of the input requirements of both inventions is a traveltime field corresponding to the 3-D data volume of interest. Specifically, the traveltimes from a surface grid of shot (or receiver) positions to a 3-D grid of subsurface positions must be available to the processing elements of the MPP. The efficient generation of those traveltime fields is one of the challenges which face geophysical analysts.
There are other contexts in which it is necessary to have a 3-D traveltime field for seismic data analysis. For example, in the development of known hydrocarbon reservoirs, tomographic inversion is becoming an increasingly common technique. In this technique, a multiplicity of receivers in a number of wells record traveltimes from a multiplicity of shots placed in a number of other, possibly different, wells. The measured traveltimes are compared to the calculated traveltimes for an initial velocity model of the subsurface and used to obtain an improved velocity model of the subsurface. This improved velocity model is a useful aid in interpretation of the structure of the subsurface and the fluids in the data volume encompassed by the wells.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,394,325 issued to Schneider teaches a method for calculation of traveltimes in a 3-D data volume. The process involves a finite-difference solution to the eikonal equation in spherical coordinates, with refinements to increase the stability of the calculation and cope with numerical roundoff error as well as turning-ray problems. The resulting 3-D grid of traveltimes are useful in depth migration, velocity analysis, raytracing for modeling of synthetic seismograms, 3-D traveltime inversion, and map migration. An alternate, uniform grid, approach to traveltime calculations is given in Schneider, W. A., Jr., Ranzinger, K. A., Balch, A. H., and Kruse, C., A dynamic programming approach to first arrival traveltime computation in media with arbitrarily distributed velocities, 57 Geophysics 39, (January 1992). However, the calculation schemes of both Schneider and Schneider et. al. cannot be directly implemented on an MPP without resolving such problems as memory allocation, load balancing and handling of communication between the processing elements. And without resolving those problems, the improvements in the art disclosed in the Jusczak et al patent and co-pending application cannot be fully utilized by industry.
There are other methods that have been used for computations of traveltime fields. Those based on wave-equation modeling would be familiar to those knowledgeable in the art. A method based on application of Fermat's principle was disclosed in Moser, T. J., Migration using the shortest-path method, 59 Geophysics 1110 (1994). The results of this method are comparable to the results of the finite-difference solution of the eikonal equation. Like Schneider's invention and other eikonal equation solvers, the shortest path method constructs the traveltimes on the entire grid simultaneously in one run of calculations, avoiding the convergence problems associated with classical ray-tracing. For that reason, however, implementation of these schemes on an MPP will suffer from the same problems noted above in conjunction with Schneider et al.
As hydrocarbon explorationists examine increasingly complex structural areas, poststack migration (or partial prestack migration) techniques and methods based on Fourier transformation are inadequate to image the subsurface data volumes. Only prestack migration will suffice. This, of course, requires computation of a traveltime field. The present invention meets the need for an efficient MPP implementation of a process that determines traveltimes for seismic data analysis in hydrocarbon exploration and production.